Loading document...
Application No.: 17/00225/B Applicant: Mr Karel Stuart Cilliers Proposal: Installation of replacement rear windows (retrospective), formation of rear window and installation of kitchen extract flue and replacement windows to front elevation Site Address: Silvercraigs 27 Palace Terrace Queens Promenade Douglas Isle Of Man IM2 4NF Case Officer : Mr Edmond Riley Expected Decision Level: Planning Committee Recommended Decision: Permitted Date of Recommendation: 20.11.2017 _________________________________________________________________
C : Conditions for approval N : Notes attached to conditions
Reason: To comply with article 14 of the Town and Country Planning (Development Procedure) (No2) Order 2013 and to avoid the accumulation of unimplemented planning approvals.
Reason: In the interest of protecting the character and appearance of the Conservation Area and, in particular, the principal elevation of the application site in that respect.
The development hereby approved relates to:
_______________________________________________________________ Interested Person Status – Additional Persons
It is recommended that the following persons should be given Interested Person Status as they are considered to have sufficient interest in the subject matter of the application to take part in any subsequent proceedings and are not mentioned in Article 6(4):
THIS APPLICATION IS BROUGHT BEFORE THE PLANNING COMMITTEE ON GROUNDS THAT IT MAY BE CONSIDERED CONTRARY TO THE DEVELOPMENT PLAN BUT IS RECOMMENDED FOR APPROVAL.
1.0 THE APPLICATION SITE - 1.1 The application site is an almost rectangular parcel of land that includes a five-storey hotel located on Queens Promenade in the Douglas Promenades Conservation Area. It is sited between two other hotels (Inglewood to the southwest and Hydro Hotel to the northeast), while there is also an access lane to the rear. This lane is apparently adopted, owing to the presence of streetlighting and double yellow lines along part of its length. The lane terminates roughly 60m southwest of the rear of the hotel; at the time of the site visit access to the lane was possible but it was in use for the storage of associated commercial waste bins. - 1.2 Both the adjoining hotels have traditional sliding sash windows to their front elevations. The application site does not have sliding sash windows: some of the units are top-opening casements, while another has no transom, and still others may even be side-hung. Some of the apertures have arched heads but this is not reflected in the shape of the frames installed therein. None of the transoms that do exist are sited centrally in the units (i.e. none has a '50/50' split). - 1.3 To the rear, the hotel has a prominent outrigger and therefore has a number of windows facing side-on (i.e. to the southwest). Until recently, these were all sliding sash windows, but several have been replaced without planning approval with top-opening
casement windows that have a 33/66 'split' with the transom located roughly one-third of the way below the top of the window. These are formed of white-coloured uPVC and are triple glazed. There are also three such windows that have been installed in the rear elevation of the building.
2.0 DESCRIPTION OF THE APPLICATION - 2.1 Full planning approval is sought for the installation of replacement windows to the front and rear elevations and the rear outrigger, along with the creation of a new window and the installation of a flue in the outrigger. The application is partially retrospective, and seeks approval for the windows already installed as described in paragraph 1.3 above. The remainder of the works are being applied for in advance of their being carried out. - 2.2 The applicant was unaware that planning approval would be required for the installation of replacement windows on the rear elevation. On being made aware, one week prior to the installation of the windows, he contacted the Department to explain that approval was needed. He explained that he had already ordered the windows, was unable to return them, and wished to improve the thermal efficiency of the building. He was advised that if he undertook the installation of the windows without the necessary planning approval he would be acting unlawfully and could potentially be subject to enforcement action as a result. The application has not, however, been submitted on the basis of the opening of an enforcement case. - 2.3 The proposed new window would be on the fourth storey and would be the same size as the existing. - 2.4 The proposed flue would be 200mm in diameter and 10.8m in height (including cowl), with roughly 0.9m of that protruding above the eaves line: none of it, however, would protrude above the outrigger's apex. The flue would be finished in an unspecified metal of an unspecified colour. - 2.5 The application is extremely basic. While some architectural drawings have been provided - and are accurate - there is a distinct lack of detail with regards the appearance of the new windows. The application has been with the Department since February and as noted the applicant is aware that the application is, in part, retrospective. This leaves the Department in a difficult position because the application could be refused (or deemed as having been withdrawn) on the basis of insufficient information having been received. However, this would not resolve the situation for either party, unfortunately.
3.0 PLANNING HISTORY - 3.1 While the site itself has not been the subject of applications considered to be of material relevance to the assessment of the current proposal. - 3.2 It is relevant to note, though, that approval has been issued to the installation of replacement sliding sash windows at one of the adjoining hotels (Inglewood) under PA 06/00684/B, while PA 08/00250/B sought approval for the installation of tilt-and-turn windows in the other adjoining hotel (Hydro Hotel) and this was refused on the following ground:
"The replacement uPVC windows would be contrary to General Policy 2 and Environment Policy 35 of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2007 and Planning Circular 1/98 in that the replacement windows would not preserve or enhance the character and appearance of the Conservation Area, to the detriment of the visual amenities of the locality."
4.1 As noted, the site falls within a Conservation Area, which is also zoned as Tourism / Residential / Offices on the Douglas Local Plan. As such, the application falls to be assessed
"If the original windows are in place they should preferably be repaired. If repair is impracticable, replacement windows which would be readily visible from a public thoroughfare MUST HAVE THE SAME method of opening as the originals. Whatever the material used in their construction, the windows MUST HAVE THE SAME pattern and section of glazing bars and the same frame sections as the original windows.
"Windows not readily visible from a public thoroughfare must have the same or similar pattern of glazing bars as the originals, but not necessarily the original method of opening, whatever the material used in the construction."
5.1 Highway Services of the DoI stated that the application had no highway safety implications on 24th March 2017. - 5.2 Douglas Borough Council offered no objection to the application in comments received 10th March 2017. - 5.3 The (apparent) owner of the adjacent hotel, Inglewood, objected to the application in comments received on both 6th March 2017 and 6th November 2017:
6.1 The installation of the additional window is to be welcomed as it would provide a welcome balance to the fenestration of the side outrigger - indeed, the elevation looks almost incomplete without the window proposed. The flue is considered to be similarly unobjectionable: it would not be seen from the Conservation Area given its position to the rear, and, while it is not likely to be the most attractive of features, it nevertheless reflects the commercial nature of this building and also the character and appearance of the rear lane. - 6.2 There is no question that the replacement of the traditional - and possibly original sliding sash windows at the rear of the hotel with top-opening casement windows can be viewed positively. Therefore, this element of the application is contrary to EP35 of the Strategic Plan in that it neither preserves nor enhances the character or appearance of the Conservation Area in which it sits. - 6.3 However, it must be remembered that the planning system allows appropriate balances to be struck. Therefore, it needs to be considered if there are other material considerations that can be set against the unacceptable nature of the windows at the rear. It should be first remembered that the fact the windows have been installed is not one such material consideration. That the application is retrospective should be neither to its advantage nor disadvantage.
6.4 The windows currently sited within the front elevation are wholly inappropriate to the building's age. This is reflected in the immediately adjacent buildings' windows, which are traditional sliding sash in form, and in the nature of windows within the wider Promenade area. However, the windows proposed to the front elevation on the application site would be consistent in form, opening style and position of their transoms. They would represent a clear improvement over the existing situation. It must be strongly borne in mind that this conclusion is reached only in view of the incorrect and incongruous windows that are judged to be actively damaging to the building's principal elevation and its appearance in the Conservation Area. It is therefore concluded that the windows proposed to the front elevation would preserve the appearance of that Conservation Area in accordance with EP35. - 6.5 Another material consideration is the fact that the lane to the rear is rarely used, and is not a through-route. It is unlikely that many people would see the rear of the buildings on this part of Queens Promenade. The most important contribution that the buildings make to the Conservation Area are in their frontages; the rears, particularly those that face onto lanes that are rarely used, are not only far more varied in form but also could not be said to offer as much to the character and appearance of the Conservation Area as their principal elevations. - 6.6 In weighing up the material planning considerations, then, it is concluded that: (a) the existing rear windows are traditional and their replacements would not be, and would be harmful, and (b) the existing front windows are not traditional and their replacement would not be, but they would represent a clear improvement to the existing situation. With the other (albeit minor) material consideration that the addition of one further aperture at the fourth storey would improve its appearance, it is concluded that in this case the balance is weighted more towards approval than refusal. - 6.7 The strongest material weight has been placed on the importance of the building's frontage, and how the proposed windows would marginally improve the existing situation even though the windows proposed to the rear would be really quite harmful. In this case, the importance of the frontage - even though what is proposed would only be a slight improvement over the existing situation - is considered to significantly outweigh the importance of the rear.
7.1 The balance that has been struck is judged appropriate in order to ensure that the most important contributing factors to the Conservation Area are protected the most. It has been a difficult conclusion to reach in the face of the reasonable and logical objections that have been received. However, as noted, the planning system allows for all material considerations to be weighed against one another: in this case, it has been concluded that the development overall would preserve the character and appearance of the Conservation Area were they all undertaken. - 7.2 In normal circumstances, a condition could be applied requiring that the works to the front elevation be undertaken prior to those to the rear. In this case, though, no such condition is possible since the works to the rear have already been undertaken. This is another reason the Department is in a difficult position since it is difficult to ensure that the only works judged to make the application acceptable (overall) happen as proposed. - 7.3 It would be possible to prevent the installation of the flue and additional window - being judged acceptable and welcome, respectively - prior to the installation of windows to the front elevation. As these are presumably important to the operation of the business, it is possible that this may encourage the applicant to act. This is the only control that can occur through the use of planning conditions. Since the applicant has submitted this application without any apparent encouragement by the Department, it does seem reasonable to assume that he would wish to regularise the situation.
7.4 If the Planning Committee is unconvinced that this is a sufficient level of control then they may feel that the application should be refused. This would mean that consideration would need to be given as to what further action would be appropriate to regularise the situation.
8.0 INTERESTED PERSON STATUS - 8.1 By virtue of the Town and Country Planning (Development Procedure) (No 2) Order 2013 Article 6(4), the following persons are automatically interested persons:
8.2 The decision-maker must determine:
I confirm that this decision has been made by the Planning Committee in accordance with the authority afforded to it under the appropriate delegated authority.
Decision Made : …Permitted.. Committee Meeting Date:…27.11.2017
Signed :…………E RILEY………….. Presenting Officer
Further to the decision of the Committee an additional report/condition reason was required (included as supplemental paragraph to the officer report).
Signatory to delete as appropriate YES/NO
Copyright in submitted documents remains with their authors. Request removal
